Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump Kills Proposed Rule Protecting LGBT Seniors
- Thread starter TheProgressivePatriot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gay rights gay seniors lgbt trump
AVISSSER
VIP Member
- Apr 8, 2017
- 589
- 73
- 60
I read that, where I am confused is why do you need a special rule when you are legally married? Your marriage is equal under the law to hetero marriages. Correct?OK, I'll do your homework for you. Not sure thought if it's that you can't understand, don't want to understand, or are pretending not to understand:This isn't hide and seek...cite your facts. How are married LGBTYRWEFD% individuals more exposed to discrimination via the rescission of this rule?Try going back and actually reading what I posted. The answer is hiding in plain sight.Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.
“By rescinding this important guidance, the likelihood has increased that LGBT people and same-sex couples will experience discrimination, neglect and abuse in long-term care, nursing homes, and hospitals.”
Clarification as to how?
New Guidance from HHS Protects LGBT Elders
Many same-sex couples have experienced discrimination at facilities like nursing homes and hospice facilities, where visitors have been denied access to their loved ones and told that the Hospital Visitation Rule did not protect their rights in these facilities. HHS has issued an official guidance making it clear that same-sex partners and others must be given equal visitation rights at long-term care facilities, regardless of their marital status. This new guidance applies to all long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, including nursing homes and hospice facilities.
Therefore your visitation rights should be equal. If you a hospital, nursing home or hospice does not honor that then you have grounds for a lawsuit.
If this is about non married gay relationships then you should fall under the same rules as non married heteros...which be along the lines of boyFRIEND or girlFRIEND. As with all friends of any stripe, visitation can be limited cross the board.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 76,339
- 52,609
- 2,645
What's the complaint?New Guidance from HHS Protects LGBT EldersGot a link to that rule? I cant go to the link in the OP. Its not safe.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Trump Kills Proposed Rule That Would Have Protected LGBT Seniors
More sickening shit from Trump today. More proof that he is either openly hostile to gay and Lesbian people, callouse and indifferent towards them, or just to fucking stupid to undrsand the impact of what he does and blindly panders to those who want to "dismantle the administrative state"
The administration withdraws a proposed rule on equal treatment of same-sex spouses in long-term care, saying it's not needed.
By Trudy Ring
October 09 2017 7:14 PM EDT
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, last week withdrew a proposed rule put forth in December 2014 to assure that same-sex spouses are treated equally to opposite-sex ones in long-term care facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funds, which most do.
The rule was proposed after the Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor v. U.S. decision, which struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, therefore allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. HHS wanted to assure that long-term care providers did not defer to state law on same-sex marriage, as not all states recognized it at the time. Barack Obama was president when the rule was proposed.
And he offered a bushit reason, as though- if Obergefell did not happen, he woulf not have found some other reason to do this:
According to the current administration, the high court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, is sufficient to assure equal treatment of all spouses. “We believe that the Obergefell decision has addressed many of the concerns raised in the December 2014 proposed rule,” CMS administrator Seema Verma wrote in withdrawing the measure.
But some LGBT-focused health care groups say it’s still necessary to include detailed antidiscrimination language. “The Supreme Court has previously found that the practice of specifically naming the groups who are protected from discrimination is essential for a nondiscrimination law to have its intended effect,” noted a press release from Boston’s Fenway Health. The release quoted Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the 1996 Romer v. Evans decision, overturning Colorado’s antigay Amendment 2:
“Enumeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply.”
(The release was issued before Friday’s unveiling of the federal government’s “religious freedom” guidance, which allows broad application of such objections nationwide.)Fenway Health also mentioned the threat to same-sex couples and LGBT people generally from “religious objections” laws, such as the one in Mississippi.
“Enumeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply.”
One need only ask a black person how well their or their ancestors' rights fared and were duly accorded until and without specific enumeration in the Civil Rights Act of the unlawfulness of discrimination on the basis of race. Even some 50 years hence, they're still not perfectly honored.
Foster:
In Foster v. Chatman, the SCOTUS decided (7-1) whether prosecutors violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause when they struck all four black prospective jurors from a death penalty case in which a black defendant was charged with killing an elderly white woman. The Court determined that the man's rights were violated by the racial discrimination of the prosecutors against black jurors.
Although every state allows prosecutors to strike a certain number of potential jurors without giving their reasons for doing so, prosecutors cannot dismiss potential jurors because of their race. The Court made this clear 30 years ago in a case called Batson v. Kentucky. In Foster, there was no question that the prosecutors were motivated by race because the defendant’s lawyers actually obtained the prosecutors’ jury selection notes, which made clear the role that race played in their challenges. Indeed, the discrimination was so blatant that a group of former prosecutors filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant, arguing that the “evidence of racial discrimination in this case is overwhelming.”
During oral arguments in Foster, the justices spent a great deal of time discussing certain procedural hurdles that could prevent them from reaching a decision on the merits, largely due to Justice Thomas alone.
WilliamsAlthough every state allows prosecutors to strike a certain number of potential jurors without giving their reasons for doing so, prosecutors cannot dismiss potential jurors because of their race. The Court made this clear 30 years ago in a case called Batson v. Kentucky. In Foster, there was no question that the prosecutors were motivated by race because the defendant’s lawyers actually obtained the prosecutors’ jury selection notes, which made clear the role that race played in their challenges. Indeed, the discrimination was so blatant that a group of former prosecutors filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant, arguing that the “evidence of racial discrimination in this case is overwhelming.”
During oral arguments in Foster, the justices spent a great deal of time discussing certain procedural hurdles that could prevent them from reaching a decision on the merits, largely due to Justice Thomas alone.
Foster isn’t the only recent case at the Court that raises questions about the fairness of our judicial system. There also was Williams v. Pennsylvania, which asked whether it was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause for then-Chief Justice Ronald Castille of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review a lower court decision concluding that lawyers Castille supervised while Philadelphia district attorney engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by suppressing evidence.
It’s a fundamental principle of our justice system, recognized by James Madison at the nation’s founding, that “[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause.” The Court has previously held that the Due Process Clause requires “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal.” Nonetheless, Castille refused to recuse himself from the case; instead, he voted to reverse the lower court’s grant of relief and wrote a separate opinion in which he excoriated both the defense attorneys and the lower court that granted the relief. The American people’s confidence in our justice system depends on whether they can trust the judges who make up that system.
The Court decided that 8th and 14th Amendments were violated when a judge who was previously involved in the case as a prosecutor declined to recuse himself, regardless of whether that judge’s decision as part of a multi-member tribunal was dispositive. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the 5-3 majority. The Court held that there was an impermissible of risk of bias that violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when a judge was previously involved in the case as a prosecutor who participated in crucial decisions about the case. Especially in the case of a former prosecutor, who likely made critical strategy decisions, the risk of improper, even if inadvertent, bias toward the position the prosecutor advocated for as a member of the adversarial process is so serious as to be unconstitutional. In this case, there is no doubt that the judge was involved in a critical decision as a prosecutor because he played a vital role in deciding to seek the death penalty, which is one of the most significant decisions a prosecutor can make. Additionally, because the deliberations of an appellate panel are confidential, it does not matter whether the potentially biased judge’s decision was dispositive, because it can be assumed that it at the very least influenced the outcome. Even the appearance of such influence undermines the crucial neutrality of the tribunal. (Source)
It’s a fundamental principle of our justice system, recognized by James Madison at the nation’s founding, that “[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause.” The Court has previously held that the Due Process Clause requires “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal.” Nonetheless, Castille refused to recuse himself from the case; instead, he voted to reverse the lower court’s grant of relief and wrote a separate opinion in which he excoriated both the defense attorneys and the lower court that granted the relief. The American people’s confidence in our justice system depends on whether they can trust the judges who make up that system.
The Court decided that 8th and 14th Amendments were violated when a judge who was previously involved in the case as a prosecutor declined to recuse himself, regardless of whether that judge’s decision as part of a multi-member tribunal was dispositive. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the 5-3 majority. The Court held that there was an impermissible of risk of bias that violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when a judge was previously involved in the case as a prosecutor who participated in crucial decisions about the case. Especially in the case of a former prosecutor, who likely made critical strategy decisions, the risk of improper, even if inadvertent, bias toward the position the prosecutor advocated for as a member of the adversarial process is so serious as to be unconstitutional. In this case, there is no doubt that the judge was involved in a critical decision as a prosecutor because he played a vital role in deciding to seek the death penalty, which is one of the most significant decisions a prosecutor can make. Additionally, because the deliberations of an appellate panel are confidential, it does not matter whether the potentially biased judge’s decision was dispositive, because it can be assumed that it at the very least influenced the outcome. Even the appearance of such influence undermines the crucial neutrality of the tribunal. (Source)
OK, I'll do your homework for you. Not sure thought if it's that you can't understand, don't want to understand, or are pretending not to understand:This isn't hide and seek...cite your facts. How are married LGBTYRWEFD% individuals more exposed to discrimination via the rescission of this rule?Try going back and actually reading what I posted. The answer is hiding in plain sight.Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.
“By rescinding this important guidance, the likelihood has increased that LGBT people and same-sex couples will experience discrimination, neglect and abuse in long-term care, nursing homes, and hospitals.”
Clarification as to how?
New Guidance from HHS Protects LGBT Elders
Many same-sex couples have experienced discrimination at facilities like nursing homes and hospice facilities, where visitors have been denied access to their loved ones and told that the Hospital Visitation Rule did not protect their rights in these facilities. HHS has issued an official guidance making it clear that same-sex partners and others must be given equal visitation rights at long-term care facilities, regardless of their marital status. This new guidance applies to all long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, including nursing homes and hospice facilities.
A simple Medical directive and/or POAttorney can be drawn up for less than $100. You can do it yourself. No facility can ignore it.
BTW -- works for gay/hetero relations where no knot has been tied. So -- what's the issue again?
Correction. $39 at Legal Zoom.. Everyone should have one ANYWAY --- if they are in nursing home or assisted care.
Pardon the pun.. But that piece of paper TRUMPS a marriage certificate or "class right"..
Knowing how stuff works is more practical and useful than bitching about Federal law and inaction...
Pardon the pun.. But that piece of paper TRUMPS a marriage certificate or "class right"..
Knowing how stuff works is more practical and useful than bitching about Federal law and inaction...
TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #28
What should be and what is , is not always the same thing. It was claimed that civil unions were the same as marriage because they provided the same rights as marriage on paper however, it did not work that way. They were not treated equally either do to ignorance or willful obstruction.I read that, where I am confused is why do you need a special rule when you are legally married? Your marriage is equal under the law to hetero marriages. Correct?OK, I'll do your homework for you. Not sure thought if it's that you can't understand, don't want to understand, or are pretending not to understand:This isn't hide and seek...cite your facts. How are married LGBTYRWEFD% individuals more exposed to discrimination via the rescission of this rule?Try going back and actually reading what I posted. The answer is hiding in plain sight.Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.
“By rescinding this important guidance, the likelihood has increased that LGBT people and same-sex couples will experience discrimination, neglect and abuse in long-term care, nursing homes, and hospitals.”
Clarification as to how?
New Guidance from HHS Protects LGBT Elders
Many same-sex couples have experienced discrimination at facilities like nursing homes and hospice facilities, where visitors have been denied access to their loved ones and told that the Hospital Visitation Rule did not protect their rights in these facilities. HHS has issued an official guidance making it clear that same-sex partners and others must be given equal visitation rights at long-term care facilities, regardless of their marital status. This new guidance applies to all long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, including nursing homes and hospice facilities.
Therefore your visitation rights should be equal. If you a hospital, nursing home or hospice does not honor that then you have grounds for a lawsuit.
If this is about non married gay relationships then you should fall under the same rules as non married heteros...which be along the lines of boyFRIEND or girlFRIEND. As with all friends of any stripe, visitation can be limited cross the board.
It is the same thing here. I documented the reason why these protections are necessary. If you're confused I can't help that and don't much care.
CarlinAnnArbor
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 55,678
- 40,593
- 3,615
Yeah. The ADVOCATE!Got a link to that rule? I cant go to the link in the OP. Its not safe.
TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #30
That doesn't mean that it will be honored. There are bigots and morons and combinations of both who will try to get around it. Why not have another layer of protection for these people. Again, I maintain that Trump is pandering to his homophobic base and the anti government zealots at the expense of vulnerable people.OK, I'll do your homework for you. Not sure thought if it's that you can't understand, don't want to understand, or are pretending not to understand:This isn't hide and seek...cite your facts. How are married LGBTYRWEFD% individuals more exposed to discrimination via the rescission of this rule?Try going back and actually reading what I posted. The answer is hiding in plain sight.Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.
“By rescinding this important guidance, the likelihood has increased that LGBT people and same-sex couples will experience discrimination, neglect and abuse in long-term care, nursing homes, and hospitals.”
Clarification as to how?
New Guidance from HHS Protects LGBT Elders
Many same-sex couples have experienced discrimination at facilities like nursing homes and hospice facilities, where visitors have been denied access to their loved ones and told that the Hospital Visitation Rule did not protect their rights in these facilities. HHS has issued an official guidance making it clear that same-sex partners and others must be given equal visitation rights at long-term care facilities, regardless of their marital status. This new guidance applies to all long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, including nursing homes and hospice facilities.
A simple Medical directive and/or POAttorney can be drawn up for less than $100. You can do it yourself. No facility can ignore it.
BTW -- works for gay/hetero relations where no knot has been tied. So -- what's the issue again?
Research Medical Center in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, forcibly removed a gay man, Roger Gorley, from his partner Allen’s bedside in handcuffs, even though the men had a joint power of attorney in order to make medical decisions for each other.
The men say the hospital refused to check for their medical power of attorney, even though they have one, and told the hospital they have one. Gay man forcibly removed from partner's bedside at Missouri hospital
TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #31
Fake news? Refute it!Yeah. The ADVOCATE!Got a link to that rule? I cant go to the link in the OP. Its not safe.
CarlinAnnArbor
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 55,678
- 40,593
- 3,615
Got news for you. God does NOT accept you as you are, but COMMANDS you turn from your sins and live.You may have a rude awakening on judgement day when you discover that God is not a bigot and thinks that you're an asshole.Kudos to Trump!The entirely LGBT shall burn in Hell!
Trump is attempting to turn us into Saudi Arabia. Fuck human rights and freedom!
Trump is the worse thing for freedom this country has seen in the past 50 years.
Worried about your golden years Matthew?
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Correction. $39 at Legal Zoom.. Everyone should have one ANYWAY --- if they are in nursing home or assisted care.
Pardon the pun.. But that piece of paper TRUMPS a marriage certificate or "class right"..
Knowing how stuff works is more practical and useful than bitching about Federal law and inaction...
Frankly, one can for free download a durable POA from the Internet, print it, sign it, have it notarized and one's "good to go."
Last edited:
TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #35
Correction. $39 at Legal Zoom.. Everyone should have one ANYWAY --- if they are in nursing home or assisted care.
Pardon the pun.. But that piece of paper TRUMPS a marriage certificate or "class right"..
Knowing how stuff works is more practical and useful than bitching about Federal law and inaction...
Frankly, one can for free download a durable POA from the Internet, print it, sign it, have it notarized and one's "good to go."
See pst 32 Sparky
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #36
Got news for you. God does NOT accept you as you are, but COMMANDS you turn from your sins and live.You may have a rude awakening on judgement day when you discover that God is not a bigot and thinks that you're an asshole.Kudos to Trump!The entirely LGBT shall burn in Hell!
Bovine excrement
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Banned
- #37
Fags want special treatment.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Correction. $39 at Legal Zoom.. Everyone should have one ANYWAY --- if they are in nursing home or assisted care.
Pardon the pun.. But that piece of paper TRUMPS a marriage certificate or "class right"..
Knowing how stuff works is more practical and useful than bitching about Federal law and inaction...
Frankly, one can for free download a durable POA from the Internet, print it, sign it, have it notarized and one's "good to go."
See pst 32 Sparky/QUOTE]
I should have emboldened the dollar figure in Flactenn's post. That's all I was remarking upon. Sorry for the ambiguity I caused in your mind by my not having done so.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
The "cured" I've heard about all ended up being gay, regardless that some ruined women's lives by marrying them.Kudos to Trump!The entirely LGBT shall burn in Hell!
A good mentally hospital can treat any kind of homosexuality with good results.
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Banned
- #40
Wahhhh for the fags and women who aren't smart enough to tell when their man can't get a boner for them. If they do get hard for women, they aren't entirely fags anyway, are they?The "cured" I've heard about all ended up being gay, regardless that some ruined women's lives by marrying them.Kudos to Trump!The entirely LGBT shall burn in Hell!
A good mentally hospital can treat any kind of homosexuality with good results.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 105
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 650
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 367
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 246
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 2
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8005
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-